Vaccine on its own thread.

SUPPORT THE SITE!
Sept Goal: £70.00
Donations so far: £51.37

Davy

get off yer bum an sing radge
Doesn't stop you getting it,doesn't stop you passing it,doesn't mean you can stop wearing a mask.....and it's still classed as a trial drug(not even approved..you have to sign a disclaimer for god's sake)

Vitamin D is a better answer...plus doesn't have side effects.

Don't get me started on the side effects.
I got the vaccine but don't remember signing any disclaimer?
 

Doc Shrink

Retired Radge
Sorry for the serious post but this has been doing my head in.
You may have noticed I've been quiet for a while. It's mainly because of the frequent "debate" going on about Anti-Vaxxers. Mostly the mocking of those with different opinions and jokes being thrown around, and in honesty I've found it easier to just take a step back than to constantly argue with people.
However, I am now coming forward to stand up and say I'm firmly in the Anti-Vax camp.
There, I've said it.
I have my reasons, like many anti-vaxxers, but it's important that everyone approaches this sensitive topic armed with the information THEY know to be true. I know my truth and I have first hand experience that backs up my stance.
I once had a Vax and it was the worst vacuum cleaner ever. I will never buy one again. All these armchair experts have clearly never experienced the disappointment of having to go over the same piece of carpet again and again to pick up the same biscuit crumbs or dog hair. I am firmly in the G-Tec camp and I will not to be told otherwise.
Merry Christmas ?
 

hibbybilly

radge grandad radge
Sorry for the serious post but this has been doing my head in.
You may have noticed I've been quiet for a while. It's mainly because of the frequent "debate" going on about Anti-Vaxxers. Mostly the mocking of those with different opinions and jokes being thrown around, and in honesty I've found it easier to just take a step back than to constantly argue with people.
However, I am now coming forward to stand up and say I'm firmly in the Anti-Vax camp.
There, I've said it.
I have my reasons, like many anti-vaxxers, but it's important that everyone approaches this sensitive topic armed with the information THEY know to be true. I know my truth and I have first hand experience that backs up my stance.
I once had a Vax and it was the worst vacuum cleaner ever. I will never buy one again. All these armchair experts have clearly never experienced the disappointment of having to go over the same piece of carpet again and again to pick up the same biscuit crumbs or dog hair. I am firmly in the G-Tec camp and I will not to be told otherwise.
Merry Christmas ?
Suck it up!
 

Greenmachine

Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
Similar to what moathibby is saying...can anyone explain this ?

A matter of about a fortnight ago, all the experts, scientists, politicians were saying it needed to be a three week gap between the first and second jabs. Now, its up to three months. This is so as we can get more people vaccinated in the quickest time. Why wasn't that the case in the first place ? It's either 3 weeks or three months...what is it ?

The so called scientific experts and the politicians are not being up front with the public. No wonder the GP's are questioning the decisions which are being taken on the hoof it would appear. This is far too important for any blunders to be made. People have to have confidence in this vaccine roll-out. We have to get this right.
 

moathibby

Legendary Radge
The thing is the medical staff who got it signed a contract which says they are going to get their second jab in 20 days.So if that doesn't happen they can sue the arse off whoever it is they have signed the contract with and believe me it's already being talked about.
 

Jack

Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
Like everyone else I've been at least a wee bit interested in this.

The UK licensing authority have licensed 2 vaccines so far.

Its not clear to me if this extended period between the jabs is UK wide or just England where its being reported.

Now there are 2 vaccines there are extended trials taking place mixing the jabs you get i.e. you get vaccine 1 then vaccine 2 later or vice versa and the time in between.

I wonder if the original source of the story got confused by these trials.

See what happens when Wee Nicky and her backing group take a few days break. You get all the leaks and half truths coming from the English government and a useless media! The sooner she gets back on that pedestal the better ;-)
 

Rocky

Well-Known Radge
I think under the circumstances where the second wave seems to be running out of control this seems like a sensible approach to me. Clearly in an ideal world you'd want to deliver all the vaccines in line with their agreed protocols but we're not in an ideal world, we're in an emergency. So.surely it's better to have 4 million people (say) with 90% protection than 2 million people with 95% protection? Are people really going to demand their second jab at the expense of others not getting it at all?
 

Jack

Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
I think under the circumstances where the second wave seems to be running out of control this seems like a sensible approach to me. Clearly in an ideal world you'd want to deliver all the vaccines in line with their agreed protocols but we're not in an ideal world, we're in an emergency. So.surely it's better to have 4 million people (say) with 90% protection than 2 million people with 95% protection? Are people really going to demand their second jab at the expense of others not getting it at all?
I'd agree with you if that was the case.

I saw/heard/read somewhere that without the second (booster) jab the immunity protection level quite quickly fell away. So you've got the most vulnerable with waning protection while less vulnerable get protection. Good luck to the government working out the best balance of that on their excel spreadsheet!

Its quite possibly a plan for later on for the less vulnerable taking from the less vulnerable if you know what I mean hence the [current] trials. I'd be concerned going off script just now is my nonscientific view.
 

Rocky

Well-Known Radge
I'd agree with you if that was the case.

I saw/heard/read somewhere that without the second (booster) jab the immunity protection level quite quickly fell away. So you've got the most vulnerable with waning protection while less vulnerable get protection. Good luck to the government working out the best balance of that on their excel spreadsheet!

Its quite possibly a plan for later on for the less vulnerable taking from the less vulnerable if you know what I mean hence the [current] trials. I'd be concerned going off script just now is my nonscientific view.
From what I've read that doesn't seem to be the case but as always it's hard to separate facts from fiction.

The other thing I thought was interesting was the thing about the first jab of the Pfizer vaccine only being 50% effective that's often quoted. It seems that this is roughly based on it being 0% effective for the first 12 days or so then 90% after that and up until the second jab. Obviously they don't really know how effective a single jab is in the longer term because everyone in the trial got a second jab. So ultimately it's a risk / reward calculation based on a certain amount of unknowns but they seem to think there's no risk of the first jab becoming pointless if the second one isn't delivered in time. It seems that the mRNA "memory" that needs to be retained for the booster to be effective can actually be expected to last years.

The Oxford one is different of course but the trial was pretty inconsistent on that one. Plus I'm sure they've said that there were zero cases of serious illness with that one even after a single jab.
 

Rocky

Well-Known Radge
I heard one doctor say the difference in protection is about 15% 1 jab v 2. A trade off worth making to get twice as many people vaccinated?
One of the things I find a bit confusing is it's not always clear what's meant by "protection". It seems to generally be preventing people from catching covid completely which is obviously the ideal outcome. But it seems that whilst the Oxford vaccine maybe only provides 70% protection at preventing covid completely, it's more or less 100% effective at preventing serious illness which is really the main thing. And it doesn't seem to be clear whether any of them prevent further transmission.
 
Want to get rid of the ads?
Sign up For a Private Membership!
Click Here
Top